tv Washington Journal CSPAN March 4, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EST
about how the republican party is approaching and social issues. senator dick durbin of illinois will focus on spending at 8:30 a.m. eastern and we will speak with a "new york times" correspondent about the recent series on the risks of drilling for natural gas. host: good morning, president obama is heading to florida where he will beef -- joined by governor judd bush. economists believe the rate is about 9.1%. the continuing battle over legislation that would strip them of collective bargaining.
gov. scott walker says democrats need to come back to resolve the situation. and newt gingrich has launched a website to explore potential run for president. but he is stopping short of establishing an exploratory committee. pbs, should go private? the numbers are on the screen. the front page of politico on this friday morning, the counter offer on the budget talks as the white house is putting forward its own proposal that would mean about $6.5 billion in budget cuts.
laura meckler is joining us live on the phone. she covers the white house for the "wall street journal." we had a very brief statement from vice president biden that it was a good conversation and that it will continue. at what happens next? guest: they will continue to meet. and yesterday was the top level members of congress as well as the white house chief of staff and budget director. what happens next is an agreement to hold a couple of test votes in the senate. the agreement is to put forth a democrat plan and a republican plan and showed that neither has enough to pass the senate. they hope to show that compromise is needed. the problem in trying to negotiate an agreement, it is
not just negotiating the agreement, but selling it to the members. host: they're going to keep the government running through march 18, and that was the departed the process. where are the budget cuts coming from? guest: the white house said yesterday that they could do another $6.5 billion. at first they were not willing to say where that would come from, but by the end of the deer -- and of the day they did release where it would come from. it is the low hanging fruit. is the cuts that have already been endorsed by the president in previous budgets. and it overlaps the cuts that kropotkin's have already endorsed in the house. -- that republicans have already endorsed in the house. host: your paper has a front- page story, an interview with the speaker of the house, john boehner. it was conducted before the
meeting. in his interview with your paper, he said that social security and medicare need to be addressed. how will they be addressed and at what level? guest: those are the big questions, right? as mr. boehner made clear in an interview, he does not think people are ready for this right now. our recent poll showed a very small percentage of a -- of americans would support cuts to social security or medicare. it is a very perilous thing for them. many republicans, including paul ryan the house budget committee chairman, have endorsed fairly substantial changes to those programs. for social security, he wants to create private accounts, which would essentially put the risk on individuals more than the
government in terms of the benefit of over time. that is something that president bush proposed in 2005 and it did not go anywhere. for medicare, the changes would be arguably even more significant because what mr. ryan has adjusted for that is basically a voucher program. the value of the vouchers would grow more slowly than the cost of medical care has been growing. a lot of seniors would probably have a problem with that. although, that would apply to future seniors, but it would generate a lot of opposition as well a host: realize there is a lot of back-and-forth in all of this. earlier in the week john boehner was saying that a lot of this should happen with the democratic caucus. republicans have drawn the line and $61 billion is what the gop wants to cut this fiscal year.
how close will they get for -- get to what they are pushing for? guest: the republicans have done more movement than the democrats have. the democrats are inching up to that figure. the question is where they will end up meeting. this does not even touch the your conversation of what they are going to do for next year, which also has to be resolved, not to mention entitlement spending and other long-term issues. the $61 billion fight that is happening right now is not the end. host: laura meckler, thanks for all " -- thanks for being with us. the budget debate has come up in 1995 and again in 2005. shourd your tax dollars fund
public broadcasting and pbs? jim demint has a piece this morning in the walls -- "wall street journal." our first caller, go ahead. caller: i think we should continue to cover public television. the fact that we pay a little bit of the budget to support this program is a great thing. it is a shame to suggest that because they are paid a salary is somehow not necessary. host: the corporation for public broadcasting, part of the johnson act that the president signed into law in 1967. the corporation for public broadcasting gets between 15% to
20% of its operating -- annual operating budget from other sources. in 2005, to give you historical perspective from the "washington post," -- bob has this point of our twitter page -- next is mike from warren, mich.. this morning. caller: why you to give me a second to get this out. first of all, these people -- with what is going on in wit
wisconsin, these people are making an effort to drown out the voice of the american people. second, who voted for these people? congressman hall was going to sponsor a bill to clean up the voting system here in america. and i notice wisconsin, michigan, ohio and florida are normally a little left of center stage. that is where the gop made all of their gains. we have here in our area, it was packed all day long. what happened to the votes? do you think after eight years of bush we all of a sudden when brain dead and votel of these republicans in? i do not think so.
bill i-80 has this point on our twitter page -- -- bill beattie has this point of order page -- our question, should pbs go private? it also includes funding for the corporation for public broadcasting and npr. next call from pennsylvania. caller: i think one of the concerns about going private is that since it is public, it is not really ratings driven. if it goes private, you risk being desperate to get ratings.
caller: i am a first-time caller and i watch every morning. pbs provides quality rather than quantity. it is the only station i really watch. i consider myself a hybrid, and the republican or democrat. it is depending on the issues and the individual. i would be very sorry to see pbs leave because it has quality. and i might add, if newt gingrich becomes president, i will move to torrez, mexico. thank you. host: new gingrich announced today that he is exploring the idea of running for president and beginning to -- beginning the process to set up the mechanism to run. the political has this headline -- the politico has this had
caller: my answer is they should not go private. in 1986, ronald reagan and the republicans got rid of fairfax. -- robert of fare -- got rid of a fair facts. the idea oven being taken to court and an anchor having to do whatever box tells them to do. -- fox tells them to do. we either need a fairness act or we need nonprofits only to provide the integration to the american people. host: thanks for the call and
the comment. dallas has this point -- we will have the latest job numbers coming up and we will get them to you as soon as we receive them. the job market may have turned a corner, suggesting the economy could soon take off also, a double-digit increase for the dow jones industrial jumping up nearly 200 points yesterday. the number of people filing for unemployment benefits st. last week to the lowest in nearly three years. back to your calls. bobbi is joining us from trenton, new jersey. should pbs go private? caller: yes. as a side note, i want to make a
remark about the scott walker thing. in the weeks that we have been discussing this, not one person has called up and actually talk about their experiences dealing with -- on job sites with union people. my earliest days was having refers to around us and treading to firebomb my boss's house and kill his wife -- threatening to firebomb my boss's house and kill his wife. i have dealt with the refers unions. i have -- of the roofers unions. i have been threatened with death because it roofer wanted a job. i grow up with the sesame street and loved it.
it has changed over the years. let me give you one example that might sound silly, but it is not. that one little show about artur is a show about a bunny rabbit. host: i have seen it many times. caller: and it had some controversy a couple of years ago because arthur is a little bunny. it is not like bugs bunny. it all has a political agenda. arthur goes to meet this lesbian couple in vermont. he has this wonderful experience with it. the one that was most amazing that i saw with my kid is that arthur goes to a muslim school. i think it was in the midwest. he is shown the whole karan by this little kid. he goes to a segregated school. you see boys doing math problems while the little girls are sitting in the corner doing
nothing. all the while this little bunny is saying, "cool, man." and he asks votel kibbe what they're doing and, well, -- he asks this little kid what they're doing and, well, there prang to mecca, arthur. if i wonder if they would show him going to a christian school where they are praying to jesus christ. there is a double standard. i miss the bugs bunny days myself. host: thanks for the call on the republican line. this headline from the "washington post" this morning --
mack your calls on the issue of pbs. -- back to your calls on the issue of pbs. should it go private? walter is joining us in new jersey. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i do not think it should go public. pbs, even though -- maybe they were trying to teach diversity or something like that, but no,
post." shourd pbs go private? caller: no, they should not. i think is important for kids to have those programs when they do something like going to a daycare center. and i would like to agree with a collar a few calls back with regard to this election last year. i do not know who these people are, but they're making some terrible choices when it comes to defunding programs. we're talking about jobs and all i see them trying to cut in every area possible. that is not going to create jobs. that will make a real unemployment rate higher. host: thanks for the call.
this from "the washington times" next is gary on the republican line. caller: i really appreciate your show. i listened every day on the way to work. host: on the video? caller: -- on the radio? caller: yes. and for those of us who have kids and i have two boys who are 25 and 27. they basically grew up watching sesame street and to this day they will ask me what is on pbs at night when they come over because there is such a wide variety of intellectually stimulating things on those channels. across from the perspective of a parent, and the lady that just called in touched on it, i do
not think we should help our kids commit intellectual suicide because those kids get a lot out of those shows. it is a great learning tool. de hautfund -- to defund would not be good. it is a terrific learning tool. if we have to cut something, let's cut something that does not hurt where we want to be in the future. it is a wonderful, wonderful vehicle for people to learn and listen. host: gary, thanks for listening to c-span radio. you can listen across the country on xm channel 132. with that plugged, we have a tutor --
sherman is joining us in austin, texas. caller: my children have enjoyed watching these programs. one is 43 and the other is 30 now. they have used them as educational tools. it should not go private. host: thanks for the call. lashawn in lincoln, neb., your next. caller: i grew up with pbs down the street from me. i disagree with the republicans thinking it is a negative thing to fund. it is a very positive station, someplace to go that is noncommercial. it does not have yammering heads that are talking negatively all the time.
disingenuousvery to cut everything. i totally disagree with where the republicans are going with this. i think we can fund this by getting harder iraq when days sooner. -- by getting out of the iraq one day sooner. i do not want to go where the republicans are wanting to go. and i am not a socialist. i am not a liberal. i just do not believe the republicans have a right. thank you. host: senator jim demint today in the "wall street journal" --
joseph has this point on our twitter page. our funding, by the way, comes from the cable industry and your monthly subscription period for we thank you for that. next call is from new jersey. caller: that is a nice segue because of is going to save the cable industry can support c- span, then the corporations that own broadcasting companies like general electric can find pbs. if they cannot do that, that there is something wrong.
again, the front-page story in the "washington post" is about activists in iraq. lorez joining us -- laura is join the us on the republican line. should pbs go private? caller: yes, it should. but they have their own programs where they initiate people to come in and donated to them and things like this. in fact, if i am not mistaken, was an pbs starter from the college's and then doing --
wasn't pbs started from the colleges and them doing their own programming many years ago? host: it began in 1967 as part of lyndon johnson's great society program and one component was the public broadcasting act. caller: right, but still, it came about of the college's because i believe asu here had started part of that with their own programming. that is how parts of it became public. regarding the deal on gov. christie turning down the internet gaming deal, they were born to charge the people 23% more for taxes and everything then if they went to the casino. yes, i believe in governor christie. he did the right thing. he was protecting his people from getting them to increase
taxes. right now, we do not need to have an increase in taxes. in fact, we need to start cutting and cutting deeply. everybody is hurting. , ourt we the second nation country in the glow that has higher taxes? we are at what, 38% for taxing of people? i mean, that is almost half of what you make. what is the point in even doing anything when you have to give over half of it back? host: i do not have the numbers in front of me, but you can certainly look at a number of european countries -- sweden, denmark, great britain -- that have higher taxes. caller: that is not what i heard. if you want to keep your viewpoint as to how you go about
your programming and on your business networks, what better way to do it then privately? thanks host: for the call. -- host: thanks for the call. we are encouraging more and more of you to weigh in with your comments on twitter. terry on that says. from the politics page of the washington times, this story --
wisconsin. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. but we should continue funding pbs. it is the only station that continues to give us the truth. there are a lot of poor people out here that get cultural education through pbs. concerts', operas -- i enjoyed watching harry connick jr. just the other night. i cannot afford to go see him live, but i enjoy his music. they do a lot for educating people. i do not think they should give that away. caller: do you contribute to that station? host: -- host: do you contribute to that caller: station -- do you contribute to that station? caller: yes, both pbs and npr.
all of these people are claiming that they do not have enough work for educated workers, but they are going to cut education and now you want to take away pbs as well? and i do not understand what these people are thinking. they are not. host: thank you for the call in this ongoing debate. when republicans took back thousand 1995 with speaker newt gingrich, it failed in the senate. it is upon again. the overall debate is how to cut $15 trillion in the deficit. we are seeing members of the president's cabinet travel to capitol hill to discuss their respective department's budget. jim demint points out that the
funding for problem broadcasting can pay salaries. next is randy, joining us from chicago. caller: could morning, c-span, and thank you for taking my call. they're not going to shut down pbs. it is just that the government is going to quit funding it. i myself and my watch pbs. i watch some of these rock-and- roll shows on there and i'd donate. i think is the right thing to do to donate. but nothing the government should have to do it. if it is like any other good program, they will prosper.
they are not shutting anything down. just like cbs said when they let juan williams and go. all the kids will still see all their shows. host: randy, thank you for the call. a heated conversation on our twitter page. a style section in the "washington post" pointing out with two mormons in -- potentially in the race. that is in the style sectio of the "washington post"."
mohamad is joining us. caller: the funding that pbs gets from the government is so minimal now. it really will not make a difference. all of the people calling that they do not want the children's programming to stop, none of that will stop. they're raising most of their money through private donations. here in minnesota, public radio is a very large entity. i have a business and i was sponsoring some of their programs, but it has become so commercialized now that it is almost like an advertisement. the sponsors come and say we
have a sale, 50% off. i stopped sponsoring years ago. it is a very rich organization here in minnesota. te, i always abide by your 30-day run will -- 30- day rule, but sometimes it is over here. i call in and i get hung upon. i'm not sure what the issue is. host: you actually talk to, in person? caller: two sundays ago i asked -- are called in and they asked my name and party affiliation and they hung up on me.
oregon. caller: it seems ironic to me that number one, they talk about taking away -- here in oregon we have opb, which has sesame street and a lot of good shows on it. i prefer to watch it because you do not have commercials and you do not have all the stuff. as far as the lady from arizona who, -- a fact of the matter is, tax receipts are at a 50- year low. i would not mind if they eject me up a little bit. last year i only made about $35,000. i guess it is all about paying the bills. host: jamie makes this comment --
another e-mail from a viewer, george in colorado. built in ohio. -- next is bill in ohio. caller: i enjoyed watching pbs, but as i watch c-span on these programs i see people, mostly democrats, led to not want to cut anything ever. none of this stuff is in the constitution. i love the police. i love the fire department. i love the nursing. sooner or later the government is going to run out of money if we do not stop spending it on everything that is nice.
we would all like it. i am at a point in my life where i hope they keep spending money on this stuff and let the kids pay for it when they get to be 40, 50, 60 years old. host: do you think they will? caller: somebody eventually is going to have to. all they're doing is borrowing money to pay for these programs. when i was a kid, my dad would not let us stay home and watch television. he made us go and do something. now you park kids in front of the television and the government supports that. the government controls everything. if it does not make sense to keep funding everything in this country. host: thanks for the call. vivian has this point --
and this from lawrence ellison in st. paul, minn. tom mcclusky is going to be joining us in just a couple of minutes. if he is with the family research council. later, weevil have a conversation with -- we've will have a conversation with senator dick durbin of illinois. >> i find more and more the behavior of spec -- of professional sports owners to be unseemly in the sense that they've won hundreds of millions of dollars from their communities, but they do not really participate in the problems of those communities. >> the sunday and q&a, sally jenkins on the intersection of
sports and public policy. over 1000 middle and high school students entered this year's studentcam documentary competition. the theme, "washington d.c. through my legs." c-span will announce -- through lens." lend >> this weekend on american history tv, live at the u.s. capitol, the 100th anniversary of americans -- of abraham lincoln's inauguration. and we will go to visit the home of woodrow and edith wilson. and author christopher pryke talks about dwight eisenhower, the cold war and the buildup of our nuclear arsenal. american history tv on c-span3 all weekend every weekend.
you can have our schedules e- mail to you. mit american history professor pauline maier is on but to be's in debt this sunday. she has written several books on the revolution. join our three-hour conversation with pauline maier, taking your phone calls, e-mails and tweeds sunday at noon eastern on c- span2. or you can also go to booktv.org where you can find the entire weekend schedule. host: our guest is tom mcclusky, the senior vice president of the family research council action. thanks for being with us. guest: thanks for having me on. host: let's begin with having you define how you view
marriage in looking at the domestic marriage act. guest: for generations, for centuries, it is existing between one man and one woman. what the president is doing is purely a political move in dupont -- in instructing the department of justice to drop any facades of defending the defense of marriage act, which is under fire in at least six different courts right now. i say facades, because earlier, the offenses that the justice department were giving work half-assed at best. there's one previous case in the defense of marriage act and it is probably a blessing that the president decided to move away and now the leadership in congress against a ban and a point attorneys -- and a point
attorneys. host: what about a civil bond between two men or two women? guest: it is counterfeit marriage. even on the other side, homosexual workers say it is not enough. they see it as it harder for a marriage. host: as you look ahead to the 2012 presidential race and the elections for congress, how will the specific issue played out in the republican party and in the larger political debate? guest: it is very likely to be part of the political debate. the cases i mentioned in the defense of marriage act, also the proposition a case in california, a state of marriage amendment, they are very likely to be at the supreme court next year. if you're going to have a supreme court willing that is
going to mobilize bases on both sides on what the definition of marriage is, the presidential candidates are certainly going to have to comment on it. host: but gays and lesbians would argue that this is a civil rights issues, similar to what we saw in the 1960's with african-americans. guest: a number of african- americans would find that pretty offensive. one of the leading groups that redefiningd to d marriage in these terms overwhelmingly voted for barack obama, but at the same time over the -- overwhelmingly voted for the defense of marriage at. host: is it safe to say that as you look at the new republican party you have 80 party that is primarily concerned with -- you have the tea party that is
preventing cancer was fiscal issues and spending and then you have your party that is more concerned with social issues. guest: there are social conservatives, national defense conservatives, fiscal conservatives. i have spoken to a number of tea party rallies and gone to a member of tea party rallies. the crowds are extremely similar, if not exactly the same. in your 20s the pro-life signs at a tea party -- you are going to see pro-life the signs at a tea party rally and vice versa. a conservative is someone who was more concerned about his family, his job, where he is going to get these grow trees next then he is about whether he
is socially conservative or fiscally conservative or whichever way you want to define it. host: one of those individuals is in the cramer, a single mom from florida, a flight attendant with delta and one of the early organizers in the tea party. the we talked to are about the agenda of the tea party movement. here is what she had to say. >> we want fiscal conservatives, even democrats. everybody is for fiscal responsibility. when you are talking about left and right, most of the time people are talking about the social issues. our thing is the fiscal issues. we do not dwell on the social issues. host: can to come together? will they? guest: no doubt. in the 2010 election, there were issues that concerned fiscal
conservatives and social conservatives. the issue of abortion was one that probably helped prolong it come out everything from mr. back amendments -- i usually try to define -- during health care debate, you had a number of pro- life democrats on the issue of life. there are a number of ways that we work together and that we do work together. host: carla has this on our twitter page. guest: in a lot of ways is like the frog in the boiling pot. is it going to affect my marriage directly? not likely. however, is going to define marriage down until it is defined as nothing.
it is defined by government because of the benefit it gives societies, the stability it gives generations. in other countries that have had gay marriage or so would unions for lumber, it affects not only the -- for a longer, it affects the whole community. host: we have been talking about -- one thing that republicans are discussing is the line-item veto for planned parenthood. is that going to happen? guest: in the budget itself is a zero sum. the title 10 funds were removed, but the amendment having to do with planned parenthood had more to do with family planning.
in the last performance where you have seen from planned parenthood, in december they admitted that all of their affiliates have to perform abortions or they have to leave the network. an abortion doctor and pennsylvania who should not even be called a doctor. he was a butcher. he has been known to have killed at least two women and buttered seven children after they were born alive. while he was not -- butchered a seven children after they're born alive. while he was not affiliated with planned parenthood, they were involved in the trying to shut down the laws that would shut people like him down. host: an ad that was recently put together by a planned port -- planned parenthood is now on the air.
let's watch. >> i am a mother of two. i was diagnosed early with cancer because of planned parenthood and i have been a survivor for the last 30 years. planned parenthood kills a huge gap for -- fills a huge gap for women like myself and my daughters. without planned parenthood i would not be here today. host: tom mcclusky, senior vice president of the family research council. your reaction? guest: planned parenthood has recently admitted they do not even do mammograms. there are other services, including public services, that cover a lot. that is where title 10 funding goes to hell. plan. it's more -- goes to help.
planned parenthood goes to more abortions. there are 23,000 babies that are not here because of planned parenthood. i supplies with the woman on the commercial. i'm glad that she got some help, except that plan. it is not the only game out there and it hurts a lot more people than it helps. host: water the chances of roe vs. wade being over the -- what are the chances of roe vs. wade being overturned? guest: i think the chances are pretty good that it will be overturned eventually. but even then, that does not end abortion. existed before roe vs. wade and will exist after. that is why places like pregnancy care centers, counseling centers, adoption services to let people know
there are helps out there when you are in that situation. host: family research council's web site is frcaction.org. what will people find on the side? guest: we are about to start out on a project educating people on henry hyde and the issue of abortion. host: we are beginning to see the republican field take shape with newt gingrich announcing plans to explore a run. candidates will be in iowa next week speaking at a christian organization care and we will cover that on c-span. as you look at the republican field, will you endorse a
specific candidate? guest: i am going to be there as well, but i would like to announce that i am not running. i usually push against endorsing a presidential candidate. i think when it comes to presidential politics -- when it comes to lower prices, we can influence " by getting the right people. -- we can influence by getting the right people in there. i do not see ourselves endorsing -- actually, senator santorum is on my board. i would not see us endorsing any time in the future. host: newt gingrich is among those speaking on monday evening. we will have that live on one of the c-span networks. we will also have that live on c-span radio and streamed it at c-span.org as we look ahead at
the republican field in iowa. lawrence joins us from cincinnati with tom mcclusky. good morning. caller: good morning. how're you gentleman doing? i am calling because i think it is a good point when mr. mcclusky refers to the african- american community. inohio, where i'm from, 2004, african americans overwhelmingly voted to ban gay marriage. it is just like california's deal proposition 8. many african americans, even those who i know, are pro-like individuals, and there is wide agreement in the black community that abortion is wiping out generations of african-american babies.
i think the gop could agree is the ticket that is the basis of agreement. guest: he brings up an excellent point. it goes back to the divide you were talking about earlier between social and fiscal conservatives. there was a debate cpac, and there were people doing outreach to organizations that define themselves by sexual orientation. my philosophy is that there are a bunch of clowns. the republicans are serious about attracting new voters, and especially at the demographics, they are more serious about issues like marriage and life, which are very important in
african-american and hispanic communities. they will be missing out on a huge voting block by failing to do that. host: joe writes this on our twitter page. guest: i think that is a common misconception about some of the things that social conservative agencies and push for or should be pushing for. many of the things the government can do is get out of the way on social issues they can defend -- issues. they can defend what other aspects are attacking basic institutions of our society, like the definition of marriage. legislation that we support on capitol hill is, in a sense, trying to plainfield, trying to
insure that taxpayers never have to pay for something as atrocious as abortion. host: might joins us from houston, texas. good morning. caller: i wanted to talk about the african-american family, too. it is an observation about things i read and see. the african-american family -- about 50% of african-americans graduate high school. their illiteracy rate is very high. their family has been completely broken down and become completely dependent on government since the 1960's. family life is so not structured. you can look at the movies by tyler. . they generally show how terribly unstructured -- the family unit does not even exist. it is like a war. the 30% of the abortions are of blacks, and they represent 14% of the population.
one more statistic -- there is another statistic. their life expectancy is lower. they do not have any family structure. they never realized talents because they are completely dependent on government. the gop should be making inroads into the black families in the form of vouchers that president obama took away from them. being pushed back into the public schools that are sold stealing -- is a disaster. it is a tragedy to the black family. host: would you call your comment a generalization or across the board? caller: studies confirm it. look at the inner-city. the kid youngstown, ohio. look at detroit. look at buffalo. african american families do not have a mom and dad in the house.
governments become the father. how do kids realize their talent or what they're capable of when all they get is a check from the government wants a month? host: that is something that president obama has also discussed. guest: i would see it more as a generalization if you want to see the important role that parents can play in the family structure, i would go to youtube and go to the video of alan west, the congressman from florida, of talking about the role his family played in his upbringing. one of my old home state senators was centered -- was senator patrick moynihan. he was a democrat, yet he wrote about what the programs were doing to the african-american community. it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. if it goes back to my earlier
statement that sometimes the best thing the federal parliament can do is stay out of the way. host: kathleen has this point. guest: well, i know my wife is watching this, so i hope she is not using a different name on twitter to try to trap me. host: trust me, that is not your wife. guest: ok. it is none of those. it is the failure of society at large. i wish i had all of the answers, if i thought i did, i would be wearing a congressional button right now. you can point to the culture and what is on television. you can point to the government programs. you can point to a failure of the churches. to try to pinpoint that it is one deciding factor would be very difficult to do. host: james is joining us from
chicago on our line for our independents. caller: might still my first point, but i will add to it. we never considered others when it comes to rights. what we want our world to be, we do everything in our power to force said on others, totally forgetting the struggle is, in fact, the same. we love to pick and choose what rights people have in america, but we get upset when the shoe is on our foot. it always goes not discussed because i guess it is just too painful. my second point is, he used the frog in the pot thing. if that is gay marriage, turning the heat up really slow, divorce
would be putting the cover over the pot so the fraud could not jump out of it. if no one is trying to make divorce illegal because it would not be palatable for us to support someone staying in a relationship they feel is detrimental to them. host: james, thank you for the call. guest: there are a number of divorce reform programs out there. divorce is devastating to american families. we are trying to address that. it is true, you cannot force two people to stay in a marriage, except right now, it is seen as an easy out. to say that that should not apply to gay marriage is saying you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. host: joe, democrat line.
good morning. caller: i want to say mr. mcclusky for his fight against this homosexual disease we have in this country. i do not know where these people think they get their rights from. he is a sick, perverted things they are doing, if the they are trying to legitimize, and i hope there are many like mr. mcclusky tried to fight against this disease. i am an african-american male, and i am disgusted that they clump this year with my race. the caller from texas is a racist. thank you. host: is it a disease? guest: we need to remember that everyone is a human being in this debate, and everyone deserves respect. it is when others are asking for things and special rights, and special definitions, sometimes
for validation. i think that is when you start running into problems. host: part of the issue is when you have those in same-sex marriages saying they want the same health-care benefits, the same rights a husband and wife would have, especially when it comes to wills, as states, and those type of things. guest: there are packages you can put together that can do all of that. you can go to an attorney and a range that stuff. heterosexual couples do that. brothers and sisters can do that. however, it is a validation aspect, and it is a matter of there being certain benefits that are reserved for married couples. it is what i mentioned before. it is the benefits that the married couples return to society are much greater than the benefits received by any government.
host: vice president dick cheney, who is a conservative, has a daughter who was a lesbian and he has supported her rights. what would you say to him? guest: i would check to see if he was armed. i would tell him, and members of my organization have had conversations with him, he is simply wrong. i know people that are homosexual. it can be a very personal issue, but that is not how you make policy. if you do not read the fine institutions -- you do not read the fine institutions because of an emotional sway. >> lowry joins us from erie, pa., on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i wanted to echo some of the prior statistics.
this president should have at initiatives that are rewarded not only traditional marriage, and keeping life, because like the previous caller said, more black babies as a percentage of the population are being slaughtered. abstinence directors -- this man calls himself a christian. he is not only supporting planned parenthood killing of babies, but encouraging premarital sex among youth, when the standard should be for all school-aged kids, abstinence. we know that abstinence before marriage would completely reduced rates of poverty, because the number one group trapped are simple, female- headed households. we spend $500 billion on poverty related issues but simple-
mother homes with no father. we know they are more likely to end the be engaged in criminal behavior. -- to engage in criminal behavior. we know poverty and stds are destroying minority populations. this president, was to take on issues like obesity, should be addressing that is harmful for people to be engaging in liberal, premarital sex. host: laura, thank you for the call. we will get a response. tom mcclusky? guest: we are supportive of abstinence programs. there are a number of things that this president has done that are very harmful, we believe, to society, and is also
kind of counter to what he espoused for his own family. that is what we are asking for. it looks like he is a great dad. he cares about his children very much. that is what we are asking for. the opportunity for other families to be able to be in a stable environment, and to dream, and to actually achieve one day being president. it is unfortunate that his policies to not reflect that. host: new jersey, democrats line. good morning. guest: you should use bristow pailin --bristol pailin for the absence program. that worked out so well. marriage is nothing but a legal contract all citizens are due
the ability to have that legal contract so that they can visit their loved ones in a hospital, so that they can have the financial situation any married couple has. any married couple would say they should have the ability to share the misery of marriage as well. let's get back to that caller from texas, and all those african-americans whose lives have been ruined. the largest percentage of people receiving social service r. white, single females. for a party that speaks about personal responsibility and taking your softball -- picking yourself up by your bootstraps, i would not have brought a child up into this world unless i was capable of raising that child, physically, emotionally, and
fiscally. once the fetus is born that you love so much, the child you hate because the child and that mother are on their own. there is no one else there to put a roof on that child's head, food on the table, or other necessities. as far as african-americans doing poorly in school, it is hard won a single mother is doing -- working three jobs to keep it together. they're not home to do homework. if they're not there to care for the child. they are not financially capable. host: are you a single mom? caller: no, i am not. i waited seven years to have my wonderful daughter. i started a college fund before she was born. i was a responsible person. if you have no right to make us breeders. we have a choice as to whether we are going to be a responsible
mother or not. you have no right to take that away from us. you have no right to put my daughter in that situation. she has control over her uterus, you do not come and do nothing to say on the matter. host: we will give a response from tom mcclusky. guest: actually i do have a response to that matter. i do not have any policies that want to make you a breeder of any sort you attack bristol -- sort. you attacked bristol palin. i would applaud her being a spokesperson. she made a mistake. she knows. she has been there. she knows the pressures that young women are involved in. on the issue of welfare, and i know this was directed towards
me, i come from an area of new york that has a lot of welfare recipients and is mostly white. welfare is not racial. the discussion crosses racial lines. now, the policies that we, as conservatives, try to push our ones that would help single parents by getting the government out of the way and making sure there are more jobs out there, and sri in them up so that churches and other private services can help out these women not just before babies are born, but also afterwards, where they might need even more help. host: our topic is social conservatives and the republican party. our guest is tom mcclusky of the family research council action. some news from this morning. former presidential candidate, arkansas governor, mike a to b
is out with a -- mike huckabee is out with a new book. in an interview with a talk-show host he said he is questioning the comments of natalie portman "peoplescars saying see natalie portman or some other hollywood starlet who boast we are having children, we are not married, and they are doing just fine. there are not a lot of single mothers that are making millions of dollars every year from being in a movie. she should not glamorize single-motherhood." is she doing that? guest: have not heard the comments, it is difficult to comment on that. it is difficult. when you start talking about trying to use hollywood stars, which are sometimes based out of reality, in trying to make a
point -- i think the point being made is dead on. sometimes our culture does glamorized and makes things look a lot easier than they are, including single-motherhood, and i think governor mike huckabee had supported programs, like i mentioned, especially abstinence, to try to educate children on that. when you start using movie stars, i normally hear about britain spears representing traditional marriage. she does not represent traditional marriage anymore than elton john represents the homosexual community as a whole. you have to be careful about those comments. host: there is a survey on the sexual habits of americans in a cold the washington post." the biggest fine mike -- and bob "washington post."
the biggest finding might find that there is no sex at all. host: so, 25%, essentially saying they have not had sexual activity. guest: i am glad to see that the numbers are up, and i think it is reflective of our youth, especially on the life issue, are even more pro-life than the generation before them. it is more troubling, as you point out, the 75% number. part of that is planned parenthood, as robert talking about earlier, and programs they try to push in the schools. that is more troubling than natalie portman, the way they glamorize sex. if that is why we try to level
the playing field, and we do not think those organizations should be funded by tax dollars. host: this comment from twitter. do you want to respond? guest: if shows that you need to be careful. bristol palin did try to make it work. it did not work out. once a baby is produced, you cannot force these women to get married. it is certainly the best path for them with the right mate, and that is why society needs to help them. host: is reminiscent of the program we saw in the vice- presidential campaign with dan quayle?
guest: i think it is much easier to mock him since it was a fictional character he was talking about. host: someone you work for. guest: yes, on the campaign. i thought you meant murphy brown. host: good morning ,kieth, what is on your mind? caller: we are supposed to learn from our mistakes carry the true choice is before the man and woman laydowns -- mistakes. the true choices before the man and woman lay down to produce a baby. i am over the marriage thing as a constitutional conservatives. there is nothing in the constitution that says these people cannot. the government ruined marriage when they took it out of the church. a prime example of that is you
are penalized. if you are single, you can make $200,000. if you are married, and both people are making $20,000, you have to pay higher taxes -- making two hundred thousand dollars, you have to pay higher taxes. it should go back to the churches. if the charges do not want to marry a gay couple, then, the government can do the marriage or whatever. it seems to be a fight over the word "marriage to." in answer to the same the family unit broke down, it was cause with the invention of the day care. it should be taught in schools. it used to be taught that the most important time of a child's life is between been born and five years old. there should be a parent there always, whether it is a male or female. when a child reaches out their
hand, it should not be a stranger, or the government. guest: i certainly agree. one parent needs to be home. there are more than enough studies that show both the benefits of two parent families, and the benefits of having one parent stay at home. on marriage, you say it is a fight over the definition of the word. it is not that. it is the fight over the definition of an institution. one of the main reasons the government gets involved is because they recognize the benefits that marriage gives to society. to totally ignore that, you are ignoring marriage as an institution within society, and the foundation of it, and that will crumble the society shortly afterward. host: chris is joining us.
charlotte, north carolina. independent line. what is on your mind? caller: the previous caller brought this up. it seems to be a fairly simple answer, and maybe that is why it will not work. if you will hear me for a second -- humor me for a second -- you have an issue with the gay marriage on religious grounds, and those who are for gay marriage want it for legal grounds. it seems to me that the easy answer is if you take all of the rights that are afforded to those in marriage, legal rights, and put those into the idea of a civil union, and then no longer have the government actually recognize marriage, return that to the churches, so
that those who believe in gay marriage will then have the legal rights they want, and those who disagree, their churches will essentially be allowed to say whether they will support matt -- marriage or not. the pope disagrees with gay marriage, and i do not know by religion's very well, but he speaks for catholics, so there should not be a catholic church allows gay marriage. host: chris in alabama essentially says the same thing. guest: well, this goes back to, i think, the marriage lite that i was talking about. just to reiterate, there are certain avenues that others can pursue to get certain benefits like hospital visitations and other issues that have been brought.
to the caller's statement, the opposition is not just on a religious ground, and it is not just about benefits. the homosexual community is not just about equality. it is about validation. they do not want to force the only on government, they want to enforce it on society. there is a group that created an app, where you can report if during a catholic mass you think the priest is talking against gay marriage, which is a tenant of the catholic church. it is obvious that it is not just benefits that are being pursued here. it is not just a government ok. they want validation from society at large, and are willing to tear down religion as a barrier. host: a vix, houston, texas.
good morning -- dick, houston, texas. good morning. caller: i will keep it quick. i am a republican. of the president's -- of the republicans that ran for president have television shows. the gentleman who called in about the blacks on welfare, i can understand that, but you have a bunch of illegal aliens that are on welfare that are taxing our school systems and our hospital systems. i want that guy to address this. i am half indiana. we, as black americans, spend 500 million to $1 trillion dollars and we cannot get it back in our neighborhood.
i would not let a homosexual man go into a public rest room with my daughter. guest: i am not sure what i'm supposed to respond to. illegal immigration is not an issue that the family research council action covers, except among the african-american and hispanic community, i will reiterate that you find overwhelming support for issues of marriage and life. i think those are issues that are big time issues. host: tom mcclusky is senior vice president of the family research council action. i want to remind the audience your website is frcaction.org. thank you for being with us. if you have been reading "the new york times" you have been reading about natural gas and
the impact your we will talk to the reporter about that and, but coming up next, dick durbin will be here to take your calls. "washington journal" continues. it is friday, march 4. >> there is a new way to get a concise review of today's event. it is "washington today" on c- span radio. we'll take it to capitol hill and anywhere where news is happening, talking to experts as we put a fence into perspective. the stories that matter to you the most -- every weekday, 5:00 p.m., to 7:00 p.m. on c-span radio. you can listen to in the baltimore/washington area at 90.1 fm , or go online at c- span.org.
you can download the program every evening. >> this weekend on booktv, boxer hurricane carter spent 23 years in prison wrongfully accused of murder. he will discuss that with journalist juan williams. also, massachusetts senator scott brown on his child -- childhood. look for a schedule on booktv .org, and get our schedule by e- mail. sign up for our booktv alert. this weekend on american history tv, the 150th anniversary of abraham lincoln pulled the first inaugural address and his oath of office, re-enacted by actor sam waterston, with remarks by harold holzer. we will go to s street, and this is the home of woodrow wilson.
american history television, how we can, every weekend. to get the complete schedule of mind c-span.org/history, or you can press the c-span alert button, and have the schedule in mailed to you. >> the people of libya have made themselves clear. it is time for gaddafi to go now, without further violence or delayed. >> as on rest in the middle east and libya continues, rhode leaders speak out. listen to their comments in their entirely of mind at the c- span video library. watch what you want, when you want. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to c-span senator dick durbin, the said it.mocrat in the cen
guest: it is shabby when you think we cannot reach an agreement. democrats, republicans, on how to fund government? we have big challenges ahead. we face a debt ceiling in a couple of months, literally whether or not because -- whether or not the united states of america will default for the first time in its history, which the -- which would be catastrophic for our country. we need to put together a five- year budget resolution that we think will move us toward a approach that will reduce our deficit. if we cannot fund government for the rest of the year it does not speak well for our prospects. host: i want to guess to a procedural question neither side has enough to offset a filibuster. what will happen next week
procedurally, and what happens beyond those votes? guest: we will demonstrate, what i think it's obvious, that hr1, which cuts $100 billion out of our budget this year is not realistic, goes too far, and cannot pass the senate. we then hope to propose a more honest and balanced approach, cutting up to $51 billion from president obama original -- president obama's original request. host:. this week president obama -- earlier this week, senator john boehner spoke about this.
>> pass in the short-term bill gives senate senate -- senate democrats two more weeks to either consider hr1, or all when their own plan for how we move ahead. americans have a right where the democrats plan to cut spending to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year is. host: he has been quick to point to you and senator harry reid for that plan. guest: our plan is to do it in a sensible way, and not go too far. i think the house picked a number. it originally said 60 billion, if you remember. a group in the republican caucus said let's up the ante. they went way too far. they made deep cuts to education, worker training, cuts
in research and innovation, and the basic infrastructure of america. i pointed those out in my home state. those cuts would be devastating to medical research. our national laboratory at oregon. in out of every student's private college in what draw -- dry up because of the pell grant reduction. we said let's step back, and this in a measured, thoughtful way. let's bring the deficit down. i hope we follow the model of the deficit commission, which i served on with erskine bowles and alan simpson, appointed by the president. that reduces the budget in a sensible way. host: that same deficit commission also look at entitlements -- medicare, medicaid, and social security -- president obama, so far has not
address specifics on that item of the budget. why? guest: he has not because this matter is evolving in the national debate between congress and the white house. first, let me make a couple of things clear. the commission addressed social security. social sector does not add one pay toward deficit. -- social security does not add one penny toward our deficit is not the problem. they do have a problem by the year 2037 if we do not do something before then. we will see it 22% reduction in the social security checks that are going out. until then, it is solvent, and will continue to be. what i believe the commission said and the american people will embrace is we have to look at the entire federal budget, from the mandatory entitlement programs, as to that tax expenditures, which means breaks in the tax code, reductions, and defense spending, and domestic
spending. speaker john boehner and the house has said we do not want to talk about anything besides discretionary spending. everything has to be on the table. host: republicans have said that the debt and the deficit did go up when republicans had control of the house of representatives and when president bush was in the white house. now, we are at $1.50 trillion dollars. it is a huge increase with this president. guest: i have to challenge you on that. let's go back to when bill clinton left the white house. the national debt in his last budget was $5 trillion. he said to the incoming president, george w. bush, i predict a $120 billion surplus. we have been running surpluses in the budget now.
that is the economy he handed to george w. bush. fast forward eight years. now look at president george w. bush's last budget. the national debt was no longer $5 children in his last budget, it was $12 trillion. he said to president obama, welcome to washington, we are losing money, and the next deficit shows the to the next budget shows a deficit of $1.20 trillion. for republicans to say we should step back, and they will deal with that, it ignores history. during the bush administration we fought two wars without paying for them, and he did something no president has done, cut taxes. it is counter-intuitive. to cut revenue during a war is something no president has done for obvious reasons.
it drives you deeply into debt. host: why did you agree to continue the bush era tax cuts for the next two years? guest: we need to stimulate the economy. the earlier stimulus package which the president suggested and passed in congress, avoided what could of been a global depression and the united states economy could been in a much worse position than it is today. this time, we reached an agreement. let's use not spending stimulus, but tax stimulus to see if we can keep the economy moving forward. there were parts i did not light reaching the ideas of tax breaks for the wealthy -- did not like. the ideas of tax breaks for the wealthy, i did not like. extending benefits for the people they need, and extending tax breaks for middle class
families and working families, they were worth it. host: we have the newest jobs numbers. the unemployment rate is now down to 8.9%. guest: it is good to break the barrier of 9%. i do not think anyone is happy. i am not. we need to continue to make sure we do not spoil the recovery. it is very sensitive. if we want to cut the money for education of young people for the training of workers, for research and innovation so that companies can make new products and create new jobs, and we cut the basic infrastructure, this fragile recovery could fall backwards. host: the unemployment rate was 9.8% in november. guest: which have come a long way, but i do not think anyone is satisfied.
host: we will get to your calls per the numbers are on the bottom of the screen. you can also send us an e-mail or join the conversation online at twitter. you supported president obama. how often do you interact with them on a one-on-one level? guest: not frequently. i do not insert myself into his life. he is been kind enough to invite me over for lunch. i have sat with him in the oval office. we were colleagues in the senate, and close friends. i was the first senator to endorse him for president, and for 12 months, i was the only senator to endorse him. i am very proud of that effort. i think the american people made the right choice. is it tough agenda, but we are moving in the right choice. host: is the job he expected it to be? guest: i did not know if the president expected to inherits
an economy in this trouble. we are going through a transformation. sometimes, i think his critics do not give them credit with trying to deal with restructuring our economy. many of the unemployed in america will never return to a job like the one they left. we need to make sure we have the resources available to train them, educate them, and make sure they have the resources available. the alternative is we will fall behind. host: carroll joins us from north carolina. if good morning. caller: how are you on this beautiful morning? guest: could not be better. caller: i feel i should not help bailout america, because i did not cause the problem. i never over-stepped my boundaries, and my personal opinion is a misuse start
dragging out people like bernie madoff from wall street co. they are not going to make the money. there was a wall street article written in january 9, 2009, and what is called is bullish on jobs. if you type that in the computer, you have the charts that goes back to the full term presidents of the way back to 1945. it says that of the six democratic presidents, the democrats created 21 million more jobs than the republicans. that is almost 1.2 million jobs per year more than republicans. host: will get a response. gerald, thank you. caller: the old same, if you want to live like a republican, both for a democrat. by and large, the economies have
improved under a democratic president and there has been more business expansion. i mention of the clinton era. it has been one of the more positive in recent times. i want to address what he said about not making a sacrifice. we need to overcome that. i would say, and gerald, you might not be able to identify what this government has spent in that effort to help you, but a lot of it has had to do with the security of our nation and building infrastructure. we all consider to be the greatest nation on earth, and we need to make certain that we right the ship, which means in dealing with the deficit in honest terms. the deficit report was a bipartisan effort to put everything on the table and deal with our issues. here is the thing that is not sustainable. for every dollar we spend, we borrow 40 cents.
we bar would primarily from china and the opec nations. these are not the easiest creditors to have. if china decided they did not trust the dollar, we would be in deep trouble. they would demand higher interest rates. it would put our economy in peril and raise interest rates. we need to deal with this an honest terms. i said i was questioning of a lot of the republicans pointing fingers at democrats, but the fact is there is a lot of blame to go around. what we need to do now is say let's stop the finger-pointing, and talk about the future care what will we do together. host: we are seen -- with what we are scene played out in wisconsin, tell us what you feel about the union protests? guest: i support the union
movement. i think that collective bargaining led to my family receiving fair wages, a safe workplace, and had -- having an opportunity for a safer future. i think collective bargaining, and the union movement after world war two caution the greatest prosperity in the history of america. american workers continue to be the most productive in the world. the idea that we need to solve budget problems state-by-state by destroying the idea of collective bargaining i think is wrong. we respect so many people like the firefighters and teachers, and the fact it they want to bargain and stand as one for dignity in the workplace is something we have enshrined in our culture. as the new republican governors in wisconsin, ohio, a challenge that, i think people will say even if i am not a right -- a member of a human, i have the
rights to decide if i want to be. host: it is known as the gang of six that includes yourself, senator mark warner, kent conrad, sex be chambliss, -- saxby chambliss -- what is the agenda? guest: it is to reduce the deficit in the world, so that people will say that the united states has acknowledged the problem and is doing something about it. what we do about tax expenditures. but the tax code. the tax code -- look at the tax code. every year, it gives away $1.10 trillion in tax breaks.
a lot of the things are for what we value -- health insurance premiums, mortgage interest -- but, believe me, there are many things that just come off as favors for individuals in certain sectors of our economy. $1.10 trillion in the tax code. do know how much we collecting personal taxes? $1.10 trillion -- of the money paid by and. -- individual taxpayers. we are going to step back and look to this. how much are we going to change to reduce the deficit? some of the things we are protecting, maybe should not be protected. can we be honest? if we put all of the spending on the table, can we put the tax breaks on the table, too? host: diane joins us from back and ruche, and -- louisiana.
-- bought some ruche, louisiana -- baton rouge, louisiana. caller: you have given us apply for of things to talk about. -- a plethora of things to talk about. i call on the republican line, but my family has been a democrat for many years i have been a grandmother. i do not feel that the region that i left the democrat party. the democrat party left knee. i have become a republican. i'd like to challenge some of your statements. you say that there is solvency in social security. my husband and i are baby boomers. i understand that if more is going out than coming in, i do not understand how there can be
solvency. he cannot kick the can down the road. -- you cannot take the can down the road. he need to address that more is coming out than is coming in. you also talk about president clinton and his surplus, but following politics as i have, because i have become so concerned about my future, my children's future, my grandchildren's future, i feel that during the clinton years -- and i voted for president clinton -- i feel that he somewhat, or his party somewhat, cooked the books. guest: thank you for calling. congratulations on 14 grandchildren. so security and solvency -- here are the facts.
not changed and not touched, social security will make every payment that has been promised's 2037. she says -- promised until and 2037. it reflects the apply -- the fact we have been putting more money into the social security trust fund and we have been paid out. we saw you coming with the baby boomers. the idea was to build up a surplus. which covered the need. i did not know that much about social scared when i was elected. they said it was broke, so we fixed on a bipartisan basis. president ronald reagan and tip o'neill came together and literally save social security -- 50 years of solvency. what happens in 2037? she is right about that part. in 2037, that payment goes down
22%. that worries us. my feeling on the deficit commission is do something today, small in comparison to what it might require 25 years ago, that will guarantee is the guarantee solvency beyond. some of my colleagues say do not touch it. i voted for the commission. the question is how much does a social security program add to the nation's deficit? the question is -- the answer is zero. we borrow in a way that the general treasury those social security. on the clinton presidency cooking the books, we enjoyed two or maybe three years of surpluses, and helped to pay
down the debt of this country, and to make social security solvent for an even longer period of time. there was greater growth than we have seen in modern memory in business ownership, home ownership, and the overall growth in real wages for american workers. i would stand in defense of what happened during the clinton years. i do not believe they cooked the books. i believe they balanced the books, which has not happened since. host: jackie, and the penn line, cape cod, massachusetts. good morning. caller: how much does the government get in royalties from natural -- natural resources? you have been on that committee, so i assume you can answer the question. why did we decide to become such a big trade partners with communist china?
guest: good questions. i am going to need a lifeline. i do not know the amount of royalties we have received for natural resources. i do not think we have received enough. the rights we give to private companies, i do not think are adequately compensated. host: that was the issue from a report that said the federal government could get more revenue to offset losses in other areas. guest: there is no question about it -- is a sweetheart arrangement. whether we are talking about grazing rights, or the use of federal land for the extravagant of minerals, i think the taxpayers deserve compensation. some of these deals go back 100 years to laws that are just ancient. that is one of the realities. host: one last call from rick in
fairfax, virginia. caller: how do you explain your national taxpayers union of f, and are the democrats not protecting the wealthy by capping the insurance tax deduction? guest: i do not know anything about the national taxpayers union. if we are not honest about revenue and spending, we will not deal with this deficit. be honest approach is that we need to know what people will pay. i think it is an honest approach it goes to the question, are those that are better off, should they be pay more? i think yes.
host: public broadcasting, that is one of the areas republicans want to see cut. take us through the debate. guest: if we are serious, loading it up with every political issue, might be a great political exercise, but that does not solve the basic problem. we need a clean spending bill that deals with the bottom line. we need to get through this year, and work for the debt ceiling, and our deficit and spending for the next five years. those are overwhelming challenges. let's not muddy the waters with the bill that was to include everything about funding the national public radio. that just adds clutter. let's get down to basics and get it right. host: should tax reform be a part of this debate? guest: i think it should. easy for me to say.
service companies does it look positive? adp gave us a positive report on wednesday given that, expectations were quite high. looking for more like 240,000, 250,000 jobs i don't have the exact figure in front of me encouraging businesses to spend some of the cash stockpiled in this economy we are starting to
see strong gains in business investment showing up as well. we know a couple of years ago, some of these companies couldn't quite get financing thank you host: unemployment rate 8.9%, what does it mean for you and where you live. thank you for joining us. i would have to say at least 60% of people i know are struggling.
certainly not happening here. they want to cut all these jobs. unemployment will go sky high again. they need to get jobs for us. i used to work construction. i'm putting out application four, five, six in a week. somewhere down the line, we'll have to do something for people exhausting their unemployment
business services. retail trimming jobs dealing with budget cuts the most since november. caller: hello. i was just stating that if people go back to work and allow these people to get jobs in america, there's no way our social security will expire because you paid into that. i paid into it since i was 17 years old. i'm 78 now host: thank you for your call.
we take c-span on the road with our bus and local content vehicle. washington your way, the c-span networks available in more than 1 million homes provided as a service. >> i find more and more the behavior of professional sports owners to be unseem ly in that they don't take part in the problems of the communities.
host: first of all, as you put together this series, what did you learn? guest: there are high levels of radio activity and that the type of drilling produces a lot of waste. some are struggling how to handle that waste and figure out how to proit. those states are pennsylvania and new york. guest: pennsylvania is probably a ground zero of it. there's a lot of drilling going on in pennsylvania
handle the water that comes up. that water comes up from the well. what we looked at closely are levels of radio activity in waste water, what is going on to keep the public safe from it. 13 states using this technique. hydrofracking. 13 states are using this method. there are federal regulations administered by the epa and state regulations. can the epa overrule any other
natural gas usage is a very important transition strategy as we look at our energy needs going into the future. whether transportation fuel, electricity generation. those taxes proposed by the administration will put a lot of these gas companies out of business and keep in mind, 97% of the gas used -- natural gas used in this country is produced here in this country by these small companies. . a given rig will employ 65 people on one rig. so a company that has, let's say, they have to cut back 50 rigs, do the math. you're talking 3,000-plus jobs. these are -- mr. akin: the very thing we should be encouraging because we're so dependent on foreign oil.
those plans to test more often. there's a national study going on right now here is some of that information as we listen to jaclyn joining us from girly, louisiana. good morning. caller: i'd like to ask a question. you all were for the fracking, is that the "new york times" editorial position? thank you.
that's why these questions are coming. good morning. >> mostly an american. coming up to pennsylvania where it all started that's why i don't understand where we get these people on the program about drilling in this country. i called my representatives office mr. thompson hoping to assure me of all this fracking going on in texas. some have a famous name, what
they are using besides water to take this gas out. they wouldn't answer. you didn't hear anything more about it. as a citizen, i'm sorry but i just do not trust my government anymore to tell me the truth. >> he touches on a point that has been controversial there's still a way to go. a lot of these companies are reluctant to reveal the formulas they use as they mix when they
hydrofrack. there's congress to require more. some of the chemicals part of the drilling process jekted into the wells are carcenogenic. this photo is a rig. it's meant to show the level of production my apologize for the radio audience. this is a graph put together along the way. explain what this is all about
still debating on that some of the waste water being prepared for the testing. the second story looked at recycling, which is a promising solution taking that and cleaning it in various different ways and using it in the form of fracking. caller: good morning. in pennsylvania, we signed a gas lease with one of the major companies. one concern you haven't touched
are severe callers are referring to the potential to either gas to seep through fissures created from the drilling area long distances, sometimes into people's wells or elsewhere. if the gas seeps say side ways and up and enters people's drinking water wells or their homes, that is dangerous. some gases have been documented around the country where forecasting has led lead to this
regulators have kept pace with that. the areas of concern tend to be drinking water contamination either by liquids involved or gas migration. there are growing concerns about the level of toxic fumes that come from this intensive drilling whether there is enough attention being paid to the missions. >> the series appearing this week in the "new york times" all available at the website ny times.com host: on the phone from new york. caller: good morning.
it's a pristine area. i do not trust this industry. they've talked about areas and say, there is no prove that our drilling has created the ill affects of these wells. we've been told if we want our wells tested before anything goes on, we have to pay for that and document all the roadways with a large expense and bad economy. we will put the claims in for the construction of the roads. the 24/7 noise pollution. it destroys the whole communit .
host: sam, thanks for the call. guest: among the various concerns. water conservation is on the top of the list. one of the regular twitter followers that said natural gas in homes makes tap water flammable. you can see there, this is a lighter used and the gas that came. is that common? guest: i don't know if it's common. the complicated thing is the gas industry will often say with basis sometimes. not with bases other times that they were not the direct cause
of that sort of gas migration. their drilling and the gas that came from the well is not the exact gas that has seeped into the drinking water well or up to the person's tap. in a place like pennsylvania where there are abandoned gas wells, there's gas permeating. sometimes other wells leak. that's why it becomes complicated for average residents to pin the blame on individual companies because there are factors in between. the caller is quite right. it's a real challenge. many who have had their well water contaminated are confronted with the requirement that they have taken a baseline
test before the contamination occurred. from the latest he had decision of business week pointing out that obama's business team will point out don't regulate. natural gas derived from forecasting but the economy is risky. our focus are the stories from "new york times." ginger from flower mound, texas. caller: good morning, thank you c-span and the "new york times" for highlighting this serious issue. i live in flower mound, texas, which is a sweet spot in the dallas/forth worth metroplex. you have touched on the issues
on the point of water. in my part of texas, we are focussed on emissions impacting human health. we have seen an up tick in things like nose bleeds, raspatory infections and the likes. i'm an activist. we've seen some in my town of flower mound and grand praire. how do we breakthrough to make sure our state and federal representatives are regulating this more safe manner host: thank you for the call. guest: the emissions. water, the issue is the concern. the emissions and air pollutions
issue will be chapter 2. a lot of people that live near these wells are come plaining about the health impact. the challenge then comes wp the drilling of the cause. that's not an easy thing to do. it involves residents going to doctors and trying to get varification. there is real concern about the ep a's current national study of fracking and that the air issue has been taken out of that
focus. do you think this will affect western states? guest: ill imagine there are. other ven us have done a really good job in reporting those and covering those. the air emissions issue sprauling and don't have a lot of traffic because of the up tick in the number of drilling rig good morning and thank you
haven't had a recorded earth earthquake in recorded years but lately, they have had several. they are looking into that. it was really interesting because everyone is making mo y money. that town has received $20 million in royalties since 2001. one of the governors there received $850 in his mailbox every three months because he owns some land there too.
wandering if your guests could comment on that. thank you. >> i haven't looked at the earth earthquake issue. i intend to do that. it is another range of concerns that people have. one side point i think is important. the debate over what sort of energy to use is a lively consequent al and any assessment has to take into account the
not get out and drive anywhere without seeing a well. weathererford had an either earthquake two or three years ago. i can't remember. there was a study done, which proved it was the drilling over there. that report was shut down immediately. then i'm hearing then hearing about arkansas. i think that's a big concern you also need to get into. it's very concerning host: thank you, susan. guest: i agree. i'd like to learn more about it. i hope to do so host: i realize you are an investigative reporter and not a
geologist. the question, how do we ex-tract natural gas? azure story points out, pennsylvania is the audiency arabia of natural gas. guest: what i can say from the reporting i did -- the first story was focussed on the radio activity. there are clear ways to monitor for those levels and to ensure if high levels are appearing in the waste water, it is not allowed to go through treatment facilities that discharge into rivers. it seems to me a pretty straight forward answer to that threat. the dill ema you point out with gas prices as bad as they are,
maybe we should drill in america but we cannot risk another oil spill disaster host: go together republican line, good morning. richard? caller: good morning. my father was a driller. i've been around the oil fields. the old type -- i had to turn my tv off. my father was a driller. i was around it a bit. the old style of drilling is they would drill straight down and cement off the surface water several hundred feet below it first before they would drill further. the new -- they would produce from just that